The Pattern of Palestinian Rejectionism

Palestinian suicidal self-pity has led them from one historic calamity to another, and is precisely the reason why Israel is now building the fence.

The tragedy of the International Court's ruling on the security fence isn't only its depressing predictability, a politicization that undermines the hope for a global system of justice. Nor is the tragedy only that Israel's right to self-defense has been branded illegitimate, while the criminals remain uncensured.

Perhaps the worst consequence of the ruling is that it will reinforce Palestinians' faith in their own innocence and victimization, and preclude a self-examination of their responsibility in maintaining the conflict. That suicidal self-pity has led Palestinians from one historic calamity to another, and is precisely the reason why Israel is now building the fence.

Palestinian political history follows a depressingly predicable pattern. First, a peace offer is presented by the international community, to which the mainstream Zionist leadership says yes, while all factions of the Palestinian leadership say no. Then the Palestinians opt for war and pay a bitter price for their failed attempt at politicide. Finally, the Palestinians protest the injustice of their defeat which, after all, was supposed to be the fate of the Jews.

From the Palestinian perspective, there have always been compelling reasons for rejecting each of the compromises that could have resolved this conflict in a two-state solution. The UN partition plan, Palestinians still argue, offered the Jews a state on a majority of territory though they were only a minority of the population. The argument ignores the fact that 62 percent of the Jewish state envisioned by partition would have consisted of desert, while the Palestinians were offered the most fertile land. The argument is even more absurd because the Palestinians, and the Arab world generally, would have rejected Jewish statehood in any form.

As for the Camp David offer, Palestinians argue that it would have left them with a series of non-contiguous cantons, not a real state. Yet a few months after Camp David, Palestinians rejected the offer of a contiguous West Bank under the Clinton Proposal and at Taba. The reason for that Palestinian rejection was, and remains, their refusal to waive the demand for refugee return to pre-67 Israel - that is, to accept the Israeli offer to cede the results of the 1967 war in exchange for a Palestinian acceptance of the results of the 1948 war.

The end result of each Palestinian rejection was that history moved on, and the map of potential Palestine that remained to be negotiated invariably shrank.

Under the Peel Commission, the Palestinians would have received 80% of the territory between the river and the sea; under the 1947 UN partition plan, 45%; under Camp David, around 20%.

And now, thanks to the latest Palestinian miscalculation, the fence is establishing a new border, in which a future Palestine will lose at least 10% of the West Bank, including east Jerusalem - all territories it could have possessed had the Palestinian leadership negotiated in good faith.

Where are the anguished Palestinian voices demanding an accounting from their leadership for the self-imposed wound of the fence?

Only a people convinced it can do no wrong because all right is on its side can fail to ask itself why it repeatedly brings disaster on itself. Where are the anguished Palestinian voices demanding an accounting from their leadership for the self-imposed wound of the fence? Where is the debate about whether four years of suicide bombings were a wise response to the Israeli offer of Palestinian statehood - let alone a debate about the moral and spiritual consequences of turning Palestinian Islam into a satanic cult?

During the first intifada, Israeli society underwent a profound, and necessary, self-confrontation. For the first time, non-leftist Israelis conceded that the Palestinians have a grievance and a case, and that, by not offering the Palestinians any option besides continued occupation, we shared at least partial responsibility for the conflict.

The result was that a majority of Israelis came to see the conflict as a struggle between two legitimate national movements, and that partition wasn't only politically necessary but morally compelling.

Rather than undergoing a similar process, though, Palestinian society has regressed even further into a culture of denial that rejects the most minimal truths of Jewish history and Jewish rights to this land.

This intifada should have been the Palestinians' moment of self-confrontation. Yet Palestinians still refuse to take the most minimal responsibility for their share of the disaster.

In almost every political conversation I've had with Palestinians who aren't political leaders, I've heard a variation of the following: "You and me, we're little people. We could make peace, but the 'big ones' on both sides don't want it. The leaders only care about their seats."

I used to be charmed by those words, imagining they contained hope for reconciliation. In fact, they explain why reconciliation eludes us. By passing the blame to others, Palestinians absolve themselves of responsibility for change, incapable of challenging those who speak in their name.

If Palestinians continue to replace self-examination with self-pity, it's because their avoidance mechanisms are reinforced by the international community, whose sympathy for Palestinian suffering becomes support for Palestinian intransigence.

I had hoped that the fence would force the Palestinians to finally face some painful truths about the conflict. The fence, after all, confronts Palestinians with a constant, tangible reminder of the consequences of rejectionism. It marks the literal limits of the politics of terror.

Yet in choosing to judge Israel rather than the Palestinian leadership, the International Court legitimizes Palestinian self-pity and sabotages the possibility of change. That is a disaster for the moral health of Palestinian society, and for the possibility of reconciliation in the Middle East.

The opinions expressed in the comment section are the personal views of the commenters. Comments are moderated, so please keep it civil.

Visitor Comments: 4

(4)
Anonymous,
April 3, 2005 12:00 AM

Yossi Klein HaLevi has written an excellent article once again demonstrating his clear and lucid grasp of the "matzav" in Eretz Yisroel. What he says here about the Palestian attitudes mirrors my own thoughts about this topic, arrived at independently. Therefore, what surprises me is not so much the substance of what he writes, but why so few people find it obviously true! Why can't so many see that there is something terribly wrong with Palestinian society and that it is davka that "wrongness" that causes the conflict to drag on and on, causing so much death and misery? Instead, so many otherwise intelligent and thoughtful people, like the Palestinians themselves, blame Israel. Indeed, even before I read this article, I would have found such a conclusion (that Israel is to blame)to be patently false!

(3)
James,
July 22, 2004 12:00 AM

Beware of reckless remarks

Excuse me, but who does the writer represent when he claims the fence "is establishing a new border"? Hasn't Israel been at pains to maintain that the fence is a mere defence that can easily be moved as and when, and Klein's words are merely ammunition for critics of Israel who see the fence as a 'land grab'. As the Israeli Supreme Court has ruled, the fence is valid for self-defence but not to gratuitously separate Palestinians from land.

(2)
Anonymous,
July 20, 2004 12:00 AM

Israel and the palestinians by Mr. Klein

The article of Mr Klein is excellent and analyses well the palestinian psyche.
However Palestinian and israelis are victims of an another very important problem. The use of the palestinians by the arab nations and by the International community.

1 In order to unite the arab world and create his pan arabism project Nasser brandished Israel as a colonialist country and developed the first anti israeli propaganda.

Then during the cold war, the russian sided with the arab world to increase their influence in the Middle East

In the 70 France reinvented Arafat as a tool to reach the leaders of the arab world and establish itself as an economic partnair in the Middle eastern countries.

In one word international communities courted strongly the arab countries and especially those who had the oil and one of the tools they used to gain the approbation of the arabs was the palestinians.

The arabs leaders in the Middle East in their turn brandished Israel and developed a very strong anti israeli propaganda which helped them control their populations.

Unsatisfied elements linked themselves to the imams and islam. the anti israeli propaganda was transformed into an anti jewish propaganda.

The palestinians with Arafat played the cards of each of the players at each generation. As Mr Klein said they complained and blamed Israel counting on the arabs and the international community to Arafat, never abandonned the idea to destroy Israel. He was supported by the arab leaders and encouraged by different political forces. Today it took the form of the rejection of the fence by the European countries.

To much is at stake here. When there will be no more oil in the Middle East or if oil is replaced by another form of energy, then Israel and the palestinian will become memory.

Unless... the palestinians realize that their best friends are the israelis and that they consider once and for all that it is in their interest to live in peace with its neighbour.

But there is another but.. the arab countries such as Iran, Syria, and Irak stop sending money for the antifada and for the education of young palestinian in the hate Israel.

So many if and but...

(1)
Ruth Lowry,
July 18, 2004 12:00 AM

Excellent article.

Mr.Halevi's article demonstrates thoughtful searching of the "Palestinian" mindset.
These people are captives of the ideology of their leaders who are obsessed with far out notions, and determined to have THEIR way..."all or nothing." They are their own and their peoples' worst enemies. They continue to lose out, and if they don't get rid of their power hungry leaders, "nothing" is exactly what they will get.

Submit Your Comment:

Name:*

Display my name?

YesNo

Email:*

Your email address is kept private. Our editor needs it in case we have a question about your comment.

My nephew is having his bar mitzvah and I am thinking of a gift. In the old days, the gift of choice was a fountain pen, then a Walkman, and today an iPod. But I want to get him something special. What do you suggest?

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Since this event celebrates the young person becoming obligated in the commandments, the most appropriate gift is, naturally, one that gives a deeper understanding of the Jewish heritage and enables one to better perform the mitzvot! (An iPod, s/he can get anytime.)

With that in mind, my favorite gift idea is a tzedakah (charity) box. Every Jew should have a tzedakah box in his home, so he can drop in change on a regular basis. The money can then be given to support a Jewish school or institution -- in your home town or in Israel (every Jews’ “home town”). There are beautiful tzedakah boxes made of wood and silver, and you can see a selection here.

For boys, a really beautiful gift is a pair of tefillin, the black leather boxes which contain parchments of Torah verses, worn on the bicep and the head. Owning a pair of Tefillin (and wearing them!) is an important part of Jewish identity. But since they are expensive (about $400), not every Bar Mitzvah boy has a pair. To make sure you get kosher Tefillin, see here.

In 1944, the Nazis perpetrated the Children's Action in the Kovno Ghetto. That day and the next, German soldiers conducted house-to-house searches to round up all children under age 12 (and adults over 55) -- and sent them to their deaths at Fort IX. Eventually, the Germans blew up every house with grenades and dynamite, on suspicion that Jews might be in hiding in underground bunkers. They then poured gasoline over much of the former ghetto and incinerated it. Of the 37,000 Jews in Kovno before the Holocaust, less than 10 percent survived. One of the survivors was Rabbi Ephraim Oshri, who later published a stirring collection of rabbinical responsa, detailing his life-and-death decisions during the Holocaust. Also on this date, in 1937, American Jews held a massive anti-Nazi rally in New York City's Madison Square Garden.

Love comes from "giving to someone." When you do altruistic acts of kindness, you are giving the other person part of yourself. You will therefore feel love for the recipient of your acts of kindness - because you will find yourself included in the other person and you will identify with him. Just as you love yourself, so too will you love the other person.

The ultimate level to strive for is that even if someone wrongs you, you will view it the same as if someone's right hand accidentally cut their own left hand. Of course while you will try to prevent this from happening, you will not take revenge on your own hand!!

The degree of love as you have for yourself is the degree of love we should have for others.

Today, think of a specific person who would gain greatly from your being more giving. (If you can't think of anyone, that person might be you...)

Although actions generally have much greater impact than thoughts, thoughts may have a more serious effect in several areas.

The distance that our hands can reach is quite limited. The ears can hear from a much greater distance, and the reach of the eye is much farther yet. Thought, however, is virtually limitless in its reach. We can think of objects millions of light years away, and so we have a much greater selection of improper thoughts than of improper actions.

Thought also lacks the restraints that can deter actions. One may refrain from an improper act for fear of punishment or because of social disapproval, but the privacy of thought places it beyond these restraints.

Furthermore, thoughts create attitudes and mindsets. An improper action creates a certain amount of damage, but an improper mindset can create a multitude of improper actions. Finally, an improper mindset can numb our conscience and render us less sensitive to the effects of our actions. We therefore do not feel the guilt that would otherwise come from doing an improper act.

We may not be able to avoid the occurrence of improper impulses, but we should promptly reject them and not permit them to dwell in our mind.

Today I shall...

make special effort to avoid harboring improper thoughts.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...